I'm not sure I get your point mate. Imran played plenty against Sri Lanka IIRC.

There's no comparison between the Sri Lankan sides of the 80's and the non-descript collection of party poopers representing Bangladesh. Sri Lanka had a nucleus of Test quality cricketers (especially batsman) and were at least 10 years ahead of Bangladesh in development when they were given Test status.

There's no comparison between the Sri Lankan sides of the 80's and the non-descript collection of party poopers representing Bangladesh. Sri Lanka had a nucleus of Test quality cricketers (especially batsman) and were at least 10 years ahead of Bangladesh in development when they were given Test status.

I said "at least 10 years" because I only became aware of them as a cricket nation after the name change in the early 70's and they were stronger then than Bangladesh are now but didn't get Test status for another 10 years.

The question of Bangladesh is actually whether they are Test class at all. But Sri Lanka were certainly minnows.

But you can't compare the difference it makes to a bowlers average today to Imran's era. If it's true that he averaged 15 against Sri Lanka he would probably average about 9 against the current Bangladesh imposters.

But you can't compare the difference it makes to a bowlers average today to Imran's era. If it's true that he averaged 15 against Sri Lanka he would probably average about 9 against the current Bangladesh imposters.

Murali averages about 13 against them so it's not that far fetched. Usually, though, people tend to disregard Tests against these countries altogether so I am not sure how the difference or distinction matters. The truth is, Imran did play Sri Lanka and they were minnows - which counters the assertion that he never played minnows.

Murali averages about 13 against them so it's not that far fetched. Usually, though, people tend to disregard Tests against these countries altogether so I am not sure how the difference or distinction matters. The truth is, Imran did play Sri Lanka and they were minnows - which counters the assertion that he never played minnows.

When judging a cricketer the strength of the opposition should matter more than just blindly removing the stats of the weakest team of the era irrespective of how competitive they were. It's true it probably doesn't matter to people who reduce cricket to crude number crunching.

When judging a cricketer the strength of the opposition should matter more than just blindly removing the stats of the weakest team of the era irrespective of how competitive they were. It's true it probably doesn't matter to people who reduce cricket to crude number crunching.

When people compare greats they rarely, if ever, care about how one great was 2-3 runs/wickets/balls better than another great against a minnow. So, that's why such a stat is of very little value. It shouldn't really matter if you are a stats man or not.

There's no comparison between the Sri Lankan sides of the 80's and the non-descript collection of party poopers representing Bangladesh. Sri Lanka had a nucleus of Test quality cricketers (especially batsman) and were at least 10 years ahead of Bangladesh in development when they were given Test status.

I'd totally agree with this, but that wasn't the point that was being made - Sri Lanka were Test cricket's "minnows" of the time and it was said that Imran avoided the minnows. I didn't think he did, becuase he played quite a bit against the weakest team of the era.

I'd totally agree with this, but that wasn't the point that was being made - Sri Lanka were Test cricket's "minnows" of the time and it was said that Imran avoided the minnows. I didn't think he did, becuase he played quite a bit against the weakest team of the era.

It's a moot point whether the weakest team of any era should automatically be called minnows. But anyway when I first said that it was just to point it out rather than wanting to get bogged down with which stats should be removed to prove whatever point was trying to be made.

It's a moot point whether the weakest team of any era should automatically be called minnows. But anyway when I first said that it was just to point it out rather than wanting to get bogged down with which stats should be removed to prove whatever point was trying to be made.

Yeah fair enough, I suppose there are differing levels of "minnow" - I consider the SL team of the early-mid 80s to have been minnows but still deserving of Test status, as opposed to current Bangladesh who to my mind aren't worthy of the title at all.